If the yes side doesn't stand up further and people don't get both sides, then I feel they should abstain. If they don't make an educated choice, what's the point of this referendum, eh?

We've just posted the link to the "yes" side's argument.

Originally Posted by Jay

I have an issue with comparisons with numbers from the 1990s. Some people are becoming more conscious about social responsibility such as environmentalism and human rights issues. This is shown through the rise in fair trade products, buying produce from local farmers, and recycled paper options.

I'd consider myself one of those people... and yet, after educating myself on the subject, I know that this is one situation where breaking exclusivity doesn't make sense.

Originally Posted by Jay

This point fails to address the fact that multiple universities around the world: UBC, University of Oslo, University of Illinois, Guelph, Smith College, to name a few have also decided against an exclusive contract with Coca-Cola. The voices of many universities and organizations is more powerful than you think – as demonstrated by the Pepsi boycotts, which helped to end their business in Burma.

After seeing how the last referendum was run, I don't have much confidence in that the results were a true reflection of what the students cared about. My vote and other friends I know who voted back then only voted because someone standing near the polling station asked us to.
I'm not doubting the potential of a united voice of university students, I just don't agree with it in this case.

Originally Posted by Jay

I think I’ve addressed the Pepsi argument in my previous post. With respect to product diversity, there are people who care about product diversity. Many of the people who approached our tables in the student centre were concerned that only Coca-Cola products are sold on campus – some of these individuals didn’t even care about the human rights issues, they were more concerned about choice.

Go to the basement of divinity then? Choices are not that far away. Dasani is pretty nasty.. but so is bottled water altogether.

Originally Posted by Jay

I’m glad that the Coca-Cola bottling plants in Canada are providing jobs to the local community. I don’t think anyone on our side of the campaign has an issue with that. Not having an exclusive contract with Coca-Cola doesn’t mean that these jobs will be lost. Our issue with Coca-Cola is their global business practices – and with large transnational corporations everything is connected.

This is the part I don't understand. If this is the issue, why don't you take stronger action to educate the masses about this between referendums so that we're not still purchasing ~95% coke. How does breaking exclusivity equal a protest against their "horrid global business practices" (which have not been confirmed by credible sources, btw) when you're still giving them the same financial support.

Originally Posted by Jay

I have no idea what this other group wrote.

It's really just some more SSDD.. this argument between the two sides has been going on for awhile and I don't think the students have made their choice since there's been almost no chance for them to really think about the other arguments to it.

Originally Posted by Jay

First of all, as we’ve mentioned earlier, our goal isn’t to ban Coca-Cola on campus. Our main issue is the notion of having only Coca-Cola products on campus and thus preventing students from choosing competing alternatives.

Ok, so let's say the university switches to 50% Coke products and 50% Pepsi products. I am assuming that ideally, this is what the "no" side wants (along with a small percentage of products being from more random, independent companies like Jones Soda).

I prefer to buy Gatorade instead of Powerade, 7-UP instead of Sprite, etc. And I do, outside of campus. There is nothing stopping someone from buying their brand of choice and consuming it on campus.

Would it be convenient to have these choices on campus? Absolutely! But not at the cost of higher prices and greater expense to the already struggling MSU.

If the options are:
1.Coke or Pepsi products ONLY for $2
2. Coke or Pepsi or Other for $2.25

I'll choose Option 1 and I think most students will also.

If you want other products so badly, buy them at a convenience store, or in bulk at Costco, Fortinos, No Frills, etc. and throw one in your backpack everyday before you head to school. That way, you get your choice, save some money, and save your fellow students some money as well.

Originally Posted by scott000

Ok, so let's say the university switches to 50% Coke products and 50% Pepsi products. I am assuming that ideally, this is what the "no" side wants (along with a small percentage of products being from more random, independent companies like Jones Soda).

No this is not what the no side is lobbying for. According to everything I've read of their campaign they are just arguing that the MSU should not be able to enter into an exclusivity contract with Coca Cola BASED on their alleged human rights abuses, not anything financial or anything to actually do with the variety of drinks available on campus.

Their platform doesn't seem to be based on actually wanting more options for beverages, or even refuting the potential benefits an exclusivity contract could bring the students of McMaster. Hence why their information meeting is about Coca Cola's ALLEGED unethical practices, and not financial figures about exclusivity contracts, or other possibilities for the campus beverage industry.

Video from the debate has been added! Check it out in the original announcement!

Originally Posted by sew12

Their platform doesn't seem to be based on actually wanting more options for beverages, or even refuting the potential benefits an exclusivity contract could bring the students of McMaster. Hence why their information meeting is about Coca Cola's ALLEGED unethical practices, and not financial figures about exclusivity contracts, or other possibilities for the campus beverage industry.

Finances:

From the copy of the 1998 contract in our possession, the exclusive contract with Coca Cola was initiated on January 1998 and ended on January 2008. Despite that fact that our exclusive contract with Coca-Cola has ended in 2008, the contract was extended for two more years because McMaster failed to meet Coca-Cola’s target volume.

Consequently, in our discussion with John McGowan (the MSU Manager), we found out that the shelves are still exclusive to Coca-Cola until the end of this academic year. During this time, although we are exclusive to Coca-Cola because of the contract clause, we are not receiving financial benefits. Hence the quote by Trull, “94 per cent of cold beverages on campus remain Coca Cola products” is misleading because our shelves are still exclusive to Coca-Cola - except for products such as milk, Jones Soda, and Calypso which are not competitors of Coke.

Also, after discussing the financial aspects with the Board of Directors, MSU president Vishal Tiwari and Andrew Caterine, Coke hasn’t even offered us an exclusive contract. The current financial environment is not conducive to a bidding war, and according to Vishal we are unlikely to get the same financial benefits as before from an exclusive contract.

Originally Posted by Jay

Finances:

From the copy of the 1998 contract in our possession, the exclusive contract with Coca Cola was initiated on January 1998 and ended on January 2008. Despite that fact that our exclusive contract with Coca-Cola has ended in 2008, the contract was extended for two more years because McMaster failed to meet Coca-Cola’s target volume.

Consequently, in our discussion with John McGowan (the MSU Manager), we found out that the shelves are still exclusive to Coca-Cola until the end of this academic year. During this time, although we are exclusive to Coca-Cola because of the contract clause, we are not receiving financial benefits. Hence the quote by Trull, “94 per cent of cold beverages on campus remain Coca Cola products” is misleading because our shelves are still exclusive to Coca-Cola - except for products such as milk, Jones Soda, and Calypso which are not competitors of Coke.

Also, after discussing the financial aspects with the Board of Directors, MSU president Vishal Tiwari and Andrew Caterine, Coke hasn’t even offered us an exclusive contract. The current financial environment is not conducive to a bidding war, and according to Vishal we are unlikely to get the same financial benefits as before from an exclusive contract.

Why isn't the no side pushing this argument then?

Their campaign is based on their humanitarian concerns with Coca Cola.

Another reason why the no side irritates me. They're using the humanitarian concerns as the big front for their campaign to get people's attention and make them believe Coca Cola is evil in lieu of actual sound arguments.

As for your final point voting yes on the referendum only gives the MSU the ability to negotiate with Coca Cola, which is important. If they don't offer us anything, or the offer they make isn't good enough we do not have to enter into the contract with them. The point is being able to negotiate and possibly gaining financial benefits instead of being barred completely from negotiating or any possible benefits b/c of a loud group of people who hold certain beliefs about Coca Cola.

Dear Stefanie,

We wanted to ensure that our facts were correct (with references) before actually posting these arguments. Hence the delay.

And yes, it's definitely true that the MSU does not have to enter a contract with them. However, it's more than just 'a loud group of people who hold certain beliefs about Coca Cola'. Many of the students that I've talked to about the issue have a problem with a monopoly on campus. The human rights abuses only solidifed their reasoning against a monopoly on campus.

I'll be addressing the idea of banning Coke (not within the scope of the referendum) versus not having an exclusive contract later as I have volunteering in 20 minutes.

First off and this is unrelated to the referendum what is it that makes people read Stefanie and then post Stephanie. I'm just curious b/c so many people do it, not just here. Clearly you figured out my name by reading it in my signature, so what made you change the spelling when you addressed me?

Onto the issue you've just addressed another issue I have with the no side, I understand having a problem with a monopoly but how are humanitarian concerns a legitimate reason to be anti-monopoly? So would it be okay for a company to have a monopoly as long as they are squeaky clean? This argument makes no sense, either own your beliefs and fight for banning Coca Cola and all other companies you feel violate human rights or consider the actual financial concerns, and own your anti-Monopoly stance. You can't use certain beliefs to be anti one company having a Monopoly, it doesn't even make sense.

Again, they're using humanitarian concerns as a front and getting people on their side under false pretenses and then throwing out things like, well we don't want Coca Cola to have a Monopoly. Why didn't you say that in the first place? Hmm, maybe b/c it wouldn't get people to notice in the same way they do when you allege human rights abuses.

Dear Stefanie,

Sorry about the misspelling, I was trying to quickly address your post prior to heading out to volunteering. It was an honest mistake and I've corrected it my previous post.

Some individuals that had a problem an exclusive contract was simply on the basis of being anti-monopoly. There are multiple reasons why people are against an exclusive contract with Coca-Cola: humanitarian, personal choice, and individuals who are anti-monopoly. Some individuals may take a stance against an exclusive contract for some or multiple reasons listed above.

From a purely anti-monopoly perspective, they would have issues with one company taking up all of the shelf-space (excluding non-competing alternatives).

From a humanitarian perspective, having a Coke monopoly would prevent us from choosing more ethical choices - aside from Calypso and Jones.

Keep in mind that the question that the referendum is asking is, “Should the MSU be able to negotiate and/or enter into an exclusive contract with Coca-Cola?”

If students vote NO to exclusivity, the MSU would technically be able to negotiate a non-exclusive contract with Coke to get financial benefits for students. Prior to the actual release of the referendum question, the proposed contract was a 20/80 split – however, like an exclusive contract, this deal is not on the table (from Vishal). Note: I'm not advocating for a 20/80 split, I'm just pointing out that it is within the MSU's power to negotiate a non-exclusive contract with the way that the referendum question is worded.

As a no side, during this referendum we are not in a position to ban Coca-Cola at all. Hence the suggestion that we should try to ban it because it would benefit human rights more than preventing an exclusive contract with Coca-Cola is not an option.

Furthermore, as you have said yourself:

I don't necessarily agree with their beliefs, but everyone is free to hold their own beliefs.

That is precisely why we don’t intend on banning Coke on campus. It will be problematic for individuals who don’t care about human rights or who want to be able to purchase Coca-Cola on campus. We respect their ability to think for themselves and make their own choice. During this referendum, we are fighting for the ability to make our choice to purchase alternatives to Coke on campus – whether it be from a personal, anti-monopoly, or a humanitarian perspective.

I'm sorry I came off so irate about the name thing, I guess I'm just annoyed after 21 years of misspellings. Perhaps I should blame my parents.

As for the ability to negotiate a non-exclusive contract that imo will not help us at all. Without an exclusive contract Coca Cola is unlikely to offer us anything that good, or anything at all. We'll already have a very high percentage of Coca Cola products on the shelf without exclusivity so Coca Cola would have no incentive to compensate us.

I still believe if the no side was so hell bent on human rights they'd fight to ban companies they believe to be unethical from operating on campus.

Originally Posted by sew12

First off and this is unrelated to the referendum what is it that makes people read Stefanie and then post Stephanie. I'm just curious b/c so many people do it, not just here. Clearly you figured out my name by reading it in my signature, so what made you change the spelling when you addressed me?

I'm confused why it's such a big deal...and I'm not being a jerk here, I'm serious about this...I know two other "Stefanies" and like 12 other "Stephanies" and only the 2 "Stefs" are/were touchy about their spellings (even though I sometimes erroneously refer to the "Stephs" as "Stefs").

Is it a minority thing? I mean sometimes people 'misspell' my name as Micheal, but that doesn't bother me...if my name was Micheal, a less common spelling, would I then be offended when someone called me Michael? And let's not get started on my last name and the trillions of ways I've seen/heard that butchered. xD

Is it an individuality thing?

------------

And as for the issue at hand...let's not forget that it all winds up as pee in the end anyway. We really should look to Occam's Razor here.

Originally Posted by Mowicz

I'm confused why it's such a big deal...and I'm not being a jerk here, I'm serious about this...I know two other "Stefanies" and like 12 other "Stephanies" and only the 2 "Stefs" are/were touchy about their spellings (even though I sometimes erroneously refer to the "Stephs" as "Stefs").

Is it a minority thing? I mean sometimes people 'misspell' my name as Micheal, but that doesn't bother me...if my name was Micheal, a less common spelling, would I then be offended when someone called me Michael? And let's not get started on my last name and the trillions of ways I've seen/heard that butchered. xD

Is it an individuality thing?

------------

And as for the issue at hand...let's not forget that it all winds up as pee in the end anyway. We really should look to Occam's Razor here.

It mostly gets irritating after 21 years when people who've spent a reasonable amount of time with you still don't know how to spell your name.

As for this particular issue I think I was a bit too harsh on the poster, maybe I have too much pent up rage over the issue. I was mostly questioning why people will see your name written down right in front of them and then proceed to spell it wrong. Like Professors (and of course full year/multiple year teachers in grade school were the worst for this) who you will hand in a piece of work to with your name spelled correctly and then they will hand it back to you addressing you in the comments portion with your name spelled incorrectly. Of course they continue to do this for the entire 4-8 months, or years even when you have small classes and they've been teaching you for multiple years. It just irks that some people don't take 5 seconds out to make sure they get a person's name right. I could understand a Professor or TA with hundreds of students. Anyway yeah it just kind of bugs especially when the name is right in front of them on a list, or paper and then right there under it they'll spell it wrong. Grrr.

Yes, yes I might be a little bit crazy. My jaw actually dropped the other day when a Professor I barely know and haven't had multiple times wrote my name down correctly, not even from a piece of paper or anything. It made me kind of happy that for once someone took the care to actually know my name, not Stephanie b/c its the same pronunciation but that's still not my name.

Like I said though I'm going to have to start blaming my parents. Its not even an individuality thing on my part but apparently my dad thought it was better with an F.

[/ocdrant]

The original announcement has been updated again with more sources from the no side.

Originally Posted by sew12

I was mostly questioning why people will see your name written down right in front of them and then proceed to spell it wrong.

Ever see this before?



Specifically, this applies in reverse as well...if you see a word and recognize its meaning, you look only at the beginning/end of the word and potentially bypass any misspellings.

Even though people may have your name right in front of them, it doesn't mean they're reading it carefully (ie. letter by letter)...and despite this, that doesn't mean they're being insensitive. In all honesty, if a prof specifically noticed your name was spelled with an f, then it's probably either due to them saying "That's not the spelling I'd expect" or because they already happen to know a Stefanie who's made a big deal out of it.